(25-12-2012 04:42 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote: In the definition of Objective it states: "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion."

I would rather say that we all have very similar personal feelings about killing for fun (except for example people watching gladiators). This is like we all think touching hot pan is bad and eating food is good. That s not because this some kind of objective fact about Universe, but because we re all humans and therefore have very similar feelings.
Personal feeling are made by evolution and are far from arbitrary.

I'm not saying there is an arbitrary system that guides morality. I'm focusing more on the concept of Objective Morality and how it works.
Simply said, I believe it's true that some morals, like killing someone for the fun of it, is Universally (as in, to all humans everywhere) it is morally wrong.
Now say that someone has the strong belief that killing for the fun of it is morally neutral or even right. Does what they believe matter to the fact of that morals objectivity? Seemingly not so far.
Now say that everyone on earth hypothetically changes their beliefs suddenly to believe that killing for the fun of it is the morally right thing to do. Does that act become morally right?

Seems like good questions.
I think that evolution has definitely guided our morals to become what they are. In the same way though, I think that we certainly would not have been able to evolve believing that killing for the fun of it were morally good lol
Just saying XD

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

(24-12-2012 06:20 PM)Logica Humano Wrote: You seem to be uneducated concerning the differences between personal morality and socially accepted norms. That and you are a worthless, pathetic excuse for a troll.

Social norms exist, who would say they don't?

I'm simply saying anything goes in life. Screw "norms".

Your position is malformed because you insist on assuming that the subjectivity of morality disregards social norms. Norms are a compulsory for any society to function, for our lives to improve. You want change? You have to work for it. If you desire nothing but destructive behavior, which includes the ignorance of such norms, you'd best kill yourself. It'd seriously be a favor for you, and for everyone else. It is literally a win-win.

(25-12-2012 05:51 PM)Troll Wrote: I would rather say that we all have very similar personal feelings about killing for fun (except for example people watching gladiators). This is like we all think touching hot pan is bad and eating food is good. That s not because this some kind of objective fact about Universe, but because we re all humans and therefore have very similar feelings.
Personal feeling are made by evolution and are far from arbitrary.

I'm not saying there is an arbitrary system that guides morality. I'm focusing more on the concept of Objective Morality and how it works.
Simply said, I believe it's true that some morals, like killing someone for the fun of it, is Universally (as in, to all humans everywhere) it is morally wrong.
Now say that someone has the strong belief that killing for the fun of it is morally neutral or even right. Does what they believe matter to the fact of that morals objectivity? Seemingly not so far.
Now say that everyone on earth hypothetically changes their beliefs suddenly to believe that killing for the fun of it is the morally right thing to do. Does that act become morally right?

Seems like good questions.
I think that evolution has definitely guided our morals to become what they are. In the same way though, I think that we certainly would not have been able to evolve believing that killing for the fun of it were morally good lol
Just saying XD

If you define something objective as
"not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion." than my position that there is no objective morality. Because it s all based on feeling like feeling that life is good and death is bad. Thunderf00t made many good points here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Bn62F5pvp0

(24-12-2012 06:24 PM)namiloveyou Wrote: Social norms exist, who would say they don't?

I'm simply saying anything goes in life. Screw "norms".

Your position is malformed because you insist on assuming that the subjectivity of morality disregards social norms. Norms are a compulsory for any society to function, for our lives to improve. You want change? You have to work for it. If you desire nothing but destructive behavior, which includes the ignorance of such norms, you'd best kill yourself. It'd seriously be a favor for you, and for everyone else. It is literally a win-win.

(26-12-2012 03:29 AM)Logica Humano Wrote: Your position is malformed because you insist on assuming that the subjectivity of morality disregards social norms. Norms are a compulsory for any society to function, for our lives to improve. You want change? You have to work for it. If you desire nothing but destructive behavior, which includes the ignorance of such norms, you'd best kill yourself. It'd seriously be a favor for you, and for everyone else. It is literally a win-win.

Social norms don't exist. Is there anybody who doesn't realise this?

The idiocy of this statement is literally one of the most appalling things I have ever seen. Denying the existence of social norms is like denying the existence of gravity.

(26-12-2012 03:29 AM)Logica Humano Wrote: Your position is malformed because you insist on assuming that the subjectivity of morality disregards social norms. Norms are a compulsory for any society to function, for our lives to improve. You want change? You have to work for it. If you desire nothing but destructive behavior, which includes the ignorance of such norms, you'd best kill yourself. It'd seriously be a favor for you, and for everyone else. It is literally a win-win.

Social norms don't exist. Is there anybody who doesn't realise this?

Nope, nobody realizes it because social norms DO exist. Just because something is socially constructed and/or subjective doesn't mean it is an illusion. Two reason for this:

1. As Logica stated, they are necessary for society to function and for individuals to effectively communicate.

2. The Thomas Theorem-"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."

(27-12-2012 10:25 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote: Nope, nobody realizes it because social norms DO exist. Just because something is socially constructed and/or subjective doesn't mean it is an illusion. Two reason for this:

1. As Logica stated, they are necessary for society to function and for individuals to effectively communicate.

2. The Thomas Theorem-"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."